Skip to main content

Table 1 Association between experience, practices concerning fecal incontinence, and previous attendance of workshop

From: Influence of workshop attendance on management of pediatric fecal incontinence in Nigeria

Attended a workshop on fecal incontinence
VariablesAttended
No (%)
Not attended
No (%)
Total
No (%)
χ2p value
Length of practice (years)
 ≤ 151 (9.1)20 (66.7)21 (51.2)10.6790.001*
 > 1510 (90.9)10 (33.3)20 (48.8)  
Stoma nurse/therapist available
 Yes2 (18.2)1 (3.3)3 (7.3)2.6170.106
 No9 (81.8)29 (96.7)38 (92.7)  
Done MACE on patient(s)
 Yes4 (36.4)3 (10.0)7 (17.1)3.9510.047*
 No7 (63.6)27 (90.0)34 (82.9)  
Patients compliance with rectal enemas
 Very compliant2 (18.2)2 (6.9)4 (10.0)1.020#0.600
 Somewhat compliant7 (63.6)21 (72.4)28 (70.0)  
 Poorly compliant2 (18.2)6 (20.7)8 (20.0)@  
Cooperativeness of parents in administering rectal enemas
 Very cooperative1 (9.1)3 (10.3)4 (10.0)0.063#0.969
 Somewhat cooperative9 (81.8)24 (82.7)33 (82.5)  
 Uncooperative1 (9.1)2 (6.9)3 (7.5)@  
Scoring system used to evaluate patients with fecal incontinence
 Yes5 (45.5)6 (20.0)11 (26.8)2.6570.103
 No6 (54.5)24 (80.0)30 (73.2)  
Digital radiograph to monitor treatment of fecal incontinence
 Yes5 (45.5)7 (23.3)12 (29.3)1.9030.168
 No6 (54.5)23 (76.7)29 (70.7)  
Abdominal USS to monitor treatment of fecal incontinence
 Yes2 (18.2)8 (26.7)10 (24.4)0.3140.575
 No9 (81.8)22 (73.3)31 (75.6)  
Stool chart to monitor treatment of fecal incontinence
 Yes1 (9.1)8 (26.7)9 (22.0)1.4510.228
 No10 (90.9)22 (73.3)32 (78.0)  
Total11 (100.0)30 (100.0)41 (100.0)  
  1. #Likelihood ratio
  2. @One respondent did not answer this question
  3. *Statistically significant
  4. MACE Malone antegrade continent enema